61 Frames Per Second

Remember that stupid-ass IGN review that said that Mega Man 9 had bad graphics, despite the fact that it accomplished exactly what it set out to do? Oh, IGN. Why your reviews count on Metacritic, I'll never know.

Amber, in my book, there's 3 types of games. One is based on pure fun and where graphic does not matter, only game play. Many Nintendo games would fit the bill.  Second one is art type. The latest Prince of Persia fit this bill nicely. And the last one is trying to reach for reality.  So basically, you need artists in all 3 categories, but as you said, the end result will not be the same.

If we go with a racing game, you can have all 3 types. 30 years ago, there was only one type...  Two rows of dotted lines moving on the screen and something that look like a car in the middle! Yet, those were still fun. But now, you have your cartoonish game, your arcade stylish game, and your reality racing game where the most important thing was to reproduce a race track with the help of gps and lasers, and where each cars drives like the real ones. In the third category, you don't want to see the "brush stroke"... You want reality or as close as the given technology will let you do it. For the other two types, then sure enough, quite often the "look" given by the artist is what will make the game interesting.  Sadly though, it does seem like people want reality over creativity. Each blade of grass have to be green and moving randomly...

So basically, there's games for all taste. In the third categgory, an artist can shine simply by making awesome textures.

Good post, and Roto13 beat me to the Mega Man 9 bit.

Personally, I felt that graphics pretty much hit their evolutionary peak last generation; so far, anything more has been gravy or dressing... though I admit, having an HD sheen on it sure is nice.

I think graphics matter. but it isn't about how technically advanced they are. It about how functional they are or maybe how artistic they maybe. For example I think Advanced Wars on the gba has good graphics.

Evolution and update to graphics has more far-reaching implications than mere art-style. The push from 2d to 3d was a graphical push. dynamic lighting allows for high levels of destructibility without creepy weird shadows, or floaty objects. I would even claim such things as advanced facial animations under the realm of graphics tech. Hell, the advance into real-time ray tracing provides boundless opportunities for physics calculations. The point being that while you might just see the graphics engine as a way to deliver your vision, that's an extremely myopic viewpoint.

Squidyj:

I'm actually not sure what your point of contention here is so correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what you are saying is that graphics have a mechanical value in making visual elements work better within a game's environment as per your examples of destructible environments and shadows.

Well yes.  So?

Everything you listed adds to an artist's box of tools to bring her artistic vision into reality.  I don't see how my view that graphics serve as the tools to create art is myopic.  Do graphics serve game play purposes?  Sure, as you describe, that's in working to better enable the cohesion of the visual style with the game's mechanics.  Can a visual style be inspired by the mechanics of a game play idea or a cool visual effect?  Sure.  I own a pile of metallic colored pencils that I never find a practical purpose for but one of these days I'm going to design a picture just around them because they're neat.  But that's still an artistic vision.  All that changes is the inspiration.

I guess I'm really just unclear on what your argument is.